Obama

Since there weren't 60 votes in the Senate.Are you even reading this thread? Do you understand that my thesis is that there are some outcomes Obama cannot achieve regardless of his will to do so, under our system of government? That those outcomes tend to be progressive aims far more often than they tend to be conservative ones? And that therefore, regardless of who is in the office and how hard they fight, we get conservative outcomes, because the Constitution has no "Green Lantern" provision where the President can simply will legislation into law? I'm not responding to this point because it's nonsense. If you think what Obama is doing is "the assassination of US citizens without charges", then you're fundamentally ignorant of the issue. For instance - "charges"? precisely what court, Rrhain, do you believe is empowered to address a charge of "deserving of being covertly assassinated"? Wouldn't it, in fact, be a lot worse if such a court existed?I think the idea that the President, who commands the military, can't order a military strike against a military target engaged in military action against the US in a military area simply because the target may hold a technical US citizenship is a little ridiculous. The idea that US citizenship should act as a magic circle of protection against the US's own bullets and bombs is very much a fringe position.

No, it's a debate on how a 60-vote supermajority requirement in an anti-representative body results in the privileging of conservative outcomes and the suppression of progressive ones. Semantics has nothing to do with it - the debate is on the structure of government. Dronester and Rrhain believe that the Constitution has a Green Lantern provision where the President can will legislation into law simply by really, really wanting to. I respectfully disagree. Repealing DADT wasn't the status quo. The elimination of rescission and adverse selection by insurance companies isn't the status quo. Reforming Wall Street wasn't the status quo - see the Obama administration's rapid and decisive action on fraudulent foreclosures by banks. Fraudulent foreclosures were the status quo. The Lily Ledbetter Act certainly wasn't the status quo.There's just this problem we have in our government, where nearly everything you'd like the President to do is subject to an effectively unconditional veto by the 4 million residents of Kentucky, who, as you might expect, are pretty conservative in the aggregate. Well, how so? Do you think Obama doesn't believe in pay equality? That he doesn't believe in individual freedom? That he doesn't believe in the regulation of business to protect the communal trusts, like the air, land, and water?Dronester and Rrhain believe - genuinely believe - that Obama believes in the rights of insurance companies to exploit the sick, the right of the government to kill and torture literally anybody it wants to for fun, and the right of powerful interests to exploit the powerless with no recourse. You clearly don't. I, too, am hoping to have a discussion more on the terms of our axis of disagreement as opposed to Dronester's, because (and I never thought I would say this to Nemesis Juggernaut!) you're far more reasonable than either of them.I'd genuinely like to explore your contention that Obama is genuinely a status quo kind of guy. My contention is that, yes, we've not gotten change on every single issue we demanded - but not for want of Obama's desire to change things, rather because we have a government structured to make that change all but impossible under most conditions. There are just too many steps in the Senate where a Senator like Mike Enzi, who chairs the Senate's Budget Committee (and thus has expansive power of the purse) despite representing only the 500,000 residents of Wyoming, can unilaterally block the President's agenda. Don't you remember when Dick Shelby all by himself blocked the appointment of 70 nominees, simply because he was opposed to a Pentagon bidding process the President wasn't even involved in? Do you understand that about the Senate? That, effectively, every single Senator has the same veto power of the President?How on Earth could we possibly get universal, single-payer health insurance through a Senate with 100 vetoes? How can a country with 101 Presidents possibly be governed?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But since when is a healthcare program that more than 70% of the public actually supports (single-payer, universal coverage) a "fringe" liberal principle?

---

​

Since there weren't 60 votes in the Senate.

---

So you respond to that by crawling under a rock, lying to people saying that you want it when you have already told the opposition that you won't request it? Why not get out in front and make sure that the public knows that he is fighting for a program that they want? Why allow Fox to create an astro-turf group to ambush Congresscritters at "town hall meetings" by not having any response team to counteract the lies? Why not call them out as the lies they are?Even if it wasn't going to be, make sure that everybody knows that it was the Republicans who killed it. Do you not recall what happened when the government shut down under Clinton? The blame went to the Republicans for their obstruction.

quote:

---

Do you understand that my thesis is that there are some outcomes Obama cannot achieve regardless of his will to do so, under our system of government?

---

Do you understand that everybody has agreed to this non sequitur of yours and pointed out that it is a non sequitur? Yes, we all know that the Executive does not create the law and rather the Legislature does. However, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the Executive has tremendous influence over the Legislature (in fact, is Constitutionally mandated to submit items to the Legislature) and can help guide legislation through Congress.No, he doesn't will it into existence. He has to work for it. And on many issues, Obama has punted.

quote:

---

I'm not responding to this point because it's nonsense. If you think what Obama is doing is "the assassination of US citizens without charges", then you're fundamentally ignorant of the issue.

---

You mean there aren't any assassination orders issued by Obama? I know I haven't mentioned the case I'm talking about so I'd love to know exactly how you know it is nonsense. Now, I'm assuming that you understand that it's the big one that I'm referring to, but it would help if you could provide more of a counterargument than "nuh-uh!"For example, when was the trial by which the person to whom I am referring to was convicted of a crime and thus subject to punishment?

quote:

---

For instance - "charges"?

---

Terrorism. What did you think?

quote:

---

precisely what court, Rrhain, do you believe is empowered to address a charge of "deserving of being covertly assassinated"?

---

You see my point, but it appears you are being distracted by the shiny object rather than paying attention to the substance of the matter. As a rule of law, there is no way to order assassination. That doesn't mean that the government doesn't have the right to kill people (since we do still allow the death penalty), but it does mean that there is no way to legally say that agents of the government have the right to unilaterally kill somebody outside of the battlefield or as the conclusion of a trial whereby charges are proven and punishment is determined.So the fundamental problem is that there has been no charges, no arraignment, no prosecution, no defense, no judgement, no oversight of any kind and yet, Obama seems to think it is OK to order a US citizen to be killed on sight. It would be an outrageous violation of Constitutional rights if the punishment were a $100 fine, but to call for the death of someone is a sign of a supreme failure in someone who is supposed to be a constitutional scholar.

quote:

---

Wouldn't it, in fact, be a lot worse if such a court existed?

---

Yep, distracted by the shiny object. The point is that this is a double failure. I agree that the government needs the ability to punish people (though whether or not the death penalty is appropriate is another matter). Assassination is without merit but how can you call for any penalty of any kind without trial? We are a nation of laws and the president does not get to send assassins out on his whim.Not even Bush tried that.

quote:

---

I think the idea that the President, who commands the military, can't order a military strike against a military target engaged in military action against the US in a military area simply because the target may hold a technical US citizenship is a little ridiculous.

---

Thus showing you are...how did you phrase it?..."fundamentally ignorant of the issue." Since when was he found to be a "military target engaged in military action against the US in a military area"? Last time I checked, your bedroom isn't a "military area." When was it determed that he engaged in "military action"? Who made the decision that he was a "military target"? How can he possibly defend himself against this when the government has set itself to his death?

quote:

---

The idea that US citizenship should act as a magic circle of protection against the US's own bullets and bombs is very much a fringe position.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? So if the president were to decide, just because they didn't like what you posted here, that you should be killed in your own home, that agents of the government are authorized to track you down, break into your home, and kill you where you sleep, you wouldn't think that your rights as a citizen of the United States might have something to do with it? That it would be...oh, I don't know...wrong to do so?You seem to have the silly notion that I'm talking about being in the middle of a firefight. Again, as you put it, you are "fundamentally ignorant of the issue."Do you even know who I'm talking about? If not, don't you think it would behoove you to find out before you open your yap?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

And then what happened as a result of all that blame? The complete end to Republican obstruction? Clinton steamrolling a progressive agenda through Congress?Now that DADT has been repealed don't forget who first originally enacted it and when. It was enacted during what most people consider Clinton's "conservative phase", as though Clinton was Picasso and had a "blue" period or something. The achievements and issues of the Clinton administration post-"Contract with America" conservativism were the conservative achievements Clinton could successfully pass through a Republican Congress that, blame or no, had 100 veto points with which to block any legislation they didn't like.Your strategy of negotiating brinksmanship? Clinton tried that. You're right that the Republicans took almost all of the blame for the government shutdown. I remember when it happened. The problem was - it didn't matter for shit. All of that blame had absolutely no effect on what Republicans were prepared to allow the President to do. As you'll recall, what they did was paralyze the House and Senate with trumped-up impeachment proceedings to derail the last year of the Clinton agenda.Why believe that it would have been any different this time? Really? "Non sequitur"? You're saying that the fundamentally skewed limitations on Presidental power specified by the Constitution and the bylaws of the Senate aren't relevant to a discussion of what outcomes the President has failed to achieve and why? That seems pretty stupid. And to my knowledge you're the first person to describe the argument as a "non sequitur"; Dronester, Xong, and Oni have simply pretended the argument has not been made or tried to give idiotic "counterexamples" of conservatives getting the things they want.Yes, that's the point - our system of government, where a resident of Wyoming is more important than a resident of New York City, makes it a lot easier to enact a conservative agenda than a liberal one. It's the easiest thing in the world to enact torture for terrorists. Single-payer health care, on the other hand, is an impossibility. No. A military strike against a military target isn't an "assassination", and it doesn't require any particular trial or charges to be brought. When was the trial where the millions of citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tried and sentenced to death? When did General Isoroku Yamamoto stand trial in the United States? Be specific.The Obama administration's position is that an armed soldier in a firefight against forces of the United States can't simply hold up a US passport as protection from getting killed. That's no more an "assassination" than the 400 or so justified police shootings every year. Being an American citizen isn't a magic vest of protection when you're engaged in open armed conflict against the police or military. Indeed. And Obama has not ordered the unilateral death of any individual, merely the apprehension where that is safe, or the neutralization where that is not.As you correctly identify the fact that it is impossible for the President to legally order the assassination of any individual (by longstanding executive order), we can conclude that the President has not legally ordered the assassination of any individual. Nonsense. Did you forget how the Iraq war started?

quote:

---

At approximately 02:30 UTC, or about 90 minutes after the lapse of the U.S. 48-hour deadline for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq, at 5:30 am local time, explosions were heard in Baghdad. According to The Pentagon, 36 Tomahawk missiles and two F-117 launched GBU-27 bombs were used in this assault. The targets were high-level Iraqi governmental officials, including Saddam Hussein himself, and were based on specific intelligence which led the U.S. government to believe it knew his movements.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iraq_war_timelineManhunts have long been accepted military objectives; "wanted dead or alive" isn't just a feature of the Old West, it's a military doctrine that has existed since The Art of War.Are you saying Billy the Kid was not a US citizen? Why would he need to be "found" to be anything at all? When were the millions of citizens residing in Nagasaki and Hiroshima "found" by any court of law, American or Japanese, to be "engaged in military action"? In what trial was Isoroku Yamamoto found to be engaged in military action against the United States?Where in the Constitution do you find that it's the role of the judiciary, and not the President in his capacity as commander of the military, to determine what is and isn't a legitimate military target? Look, you may find the President's unilateral authority to order the military disturbing. To my mind it's better that such authority is invested in an elected president as opposed to a military leader. But regardless of your thoughts, Obama did not write the Constitution, establish the military, or invent the War on (Some People Who Use) Terror. A necessary consequence of the President's authority to determine military targets is that he can determine that Us citizens fighting against the government in warzones are legitimate military targets for army manhunts.That's never been considered "assassination." The Posse Comitatus Act would render such actions within the borders of the United States illegal. When you're in a warzone, engaged in military action against the forces of the United States, there has never been any legal doctrine to suggest that you have any particular protection from being killed by the US military just by virtue of having a US passport. Obama didn't invent that. The Constitution does not require (or allow) judicial review of the President's determination of military targets. You may not like that outcome, but that's merely another example of how the structure of our government is biased against progressive outcomes.

Like I said, I don't want to overlook the good things he has done, such as the repeal of DADT and ending the war in Iraq. Those are two milestones worth mentioning. What I mean is he spends like every other American president, and even worse. He's placed the country in more recession than any other president in history -- an unprecedented and obscene amount.As if Bush wasn't bad enough, he's spent 3 times as much, in the middle of one of the worst recessions in American history.Whether his health care bill was a good or bad thing is not even up for debate at this point. I'd like to point to the timing of it. That was just about the worst time to go off and splurge like a teenager with a credit card. Without a strong economy no country can take care of its citizens. The economy is priority number 1. I would prefer being realistic on matters. I highly doubt that Obama is intentionally sabotaging things to destroy the country. That's silly. He campaigned on the platitude that he was all about change, but it's the same shit we've seen.

Stimulus package of $787 Billion. Right, because that worked so well to stimulate the economy when Bush tried it. I mean, why not just pile the money in a heap and set it on fire. It's about as effective.

Still taking cues from Bush's failures, Obama signs on with TARP and bails-out companies.

Obama has a huge list of czars, some of which are every bit as threatening to free speech and freedom of expression and privacy than the Patriot Act (Let me know if you want a list of these clowns and their stated goals. Pretty scary stuff).

Remember the problem he had with the Patriot Act? He didn't get rid of it, he just revised it marginally. Things like extraordinary rendition are still in place.

Continues the War in Afghanistan. What's the goal? At what point do you win, and at what point do you lose? How do you even win?

​

Most of this is simply an extension of Bush's policies repackaged. That's the funny things about bickering between Dems and Reps... They're flipsides of the same coin.

​

I see nothing worthy of change that is beyond the status quo. Presidents like Kucinich or Paul would be a shift large enough to get away from the status quo. Everyone else are power-hungry, career politicians first, citizens second.

​

Obama's approval rating among Democrats is even worse than Bush's approval ratings for Republicans.

​

I cannot wait for election time. Obama was not the hero riding in on a horse. He's propped up by his rhetoric, but his words are beginning to condemn him

​

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

​

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Congress has the power of the purse under our Constitution. Only about 15% of 2010's Federal budget was discretionary - that is, was "optional" or could have been reduced. The vast majority of the budget is nondescretionary, and represents spending to ends that Congress is legally committed to - like the enormous spending on two foreign wars.Anyway, I don't recall Obama's campaign promise to be a Federal cheapskate. Deficit hawkery is a Republican obsession. Recessions are exactly when you want to ramp up Federal spending, to overcome the shortfall in demand. Are you aware exactly how much US currency just disappeared when the housing bubble popped? About 1.5 trillion dollars just evaporated. It's gone! That's why we're in a recession and nobody has any money - over a trillion dollars of it just up and vanished.The appropriate response to that by the government is pretty simple - print 1.5 trillion extra dollars and spend them on things.The time to balance the budget is in the good times, when private industry is roaring and the economy is growing. That's the time to balance the budget because it doesn't result in people starving to death when the government stops patronizing their businesses. In a recession, the government is the only one with any money left so it's important for the government to spend spend spend to people keep their jobs and the businesses communities rely on don't have to close up. Agreed, which is why the government should be racking up huge deficits. Balancing the Federal budget doesn't help the economy, it harms it. Naturally, the middle of a recession is the exact time Republicans chose to attack Obama on the deficit. (Why do you suppose that is?) Tax cuts aren't stimulus. That doesn't create money, that just moves around money that was already there. The Obama stimulus, on the other hand, actually was effective, as even conservative economists were forced to admit. Companies employ Americans. How are you going to get people out of a recession when they don't have jobs? "Czars" is just a name for a president's advisor, and Obama has less of them than Bush had. They're not actually czars of anything. Don't get fooled by conservative talking points, you were doing so well. How would Obama "get rid" of a law passed by Congress? Be specific. Well, no. Most of these are laws Congress passed that the President - any president - simply doesn't have the unilateral authority to reverse. Nothing Obama can do can make the PATROIT Act not be Federal law anymore. There's no retroactive Presidential veto. Why do you think Ron Paul isn't "power-hungry"? He ran for President, didn't he?

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

And then what happened as a result of all that blame? The complete end to Republican obstruction? Clinton steamrolling a progressive agenda through Congress?

---

Clinton wasn't a liberal.Neither is Obama.

quote:

---

Now that DADT has been repealed

---

No, it hasn't.

quote:

---

As you'll recall, what they did was paralyze the House and Senate with trumped-up impeachment proceedings to derail the last year of the Clinton agenda.

---

Which the public was sick of and nobody on the Democratic side took advantage of.

quote:

---

Really? "Non sequitur"?

---

Yep. Nobody here has implied let alone stated that the Executive writes legislation. Everybody has acknowledged, some quite directly, that it is the Legislature that does so. Some of us even quoted the Constitution to you in order to show that we do know that fact. And yet here you are, repeating that complete irrelevance. You continue to pretend that Congress acts in a vacuum.

quote:

---

Dronester, Xong, and Oni have simply pretended the argument has not been made or tried to give idiotic "counterexamples" of conservatives getting the things they want.

---

Which proves my point: They all understand that it is Congress that makes the laws but that the President has the ability to influence Congress and thus get his agenda through. He doesn't "will" it into existence. He has to work for it.And on many issues, Obama punted.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You mean there aren't any assassination orders issued by Obama?

---

​

No. A military strike against a military target isn't an "assassination"

---

So who am I talking about and where is your evidence that this is a "military strike against a military target"? Strange how I can't find any DoD orders for such. Of course, it isn't the military who is after the target, so that's hardly surprising.So why is the President sending non-military government officials to kill somebody outside of the battlefield?Do you even know who I'm talking about?

quote:

---

and it doesn't require any particular trial or charges to be brought.

---

Strange, I thought the Fifth Amendment was the law of the land. Something about no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." How "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." And note, that's something that the Constitution affords everybody when dealing with the United States, not just citizens.If the Obama Administration is so sure of their justification, why haven't they gone to court? Why did they send non-military government agents to assassinate somebody outside the battlefield?Do you even know who I'm talking about?

quote:

---

When was the trial where the millions of citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tried and sentenced to death?

---

Good question. There is a legitimate claim to be made that the US is guilty of horrendous war crimes in the bombing of Japan. The fact that we got away with it doesn't mean we get to do whatever the hell we want.

quote:

---

The Obama administration's position is that an armed soldier in a firefight against forces of the United States can't simply hold up a US passport as protection from getting killed.

---

And where is your evidence that the person I'm talking about is "an armed soldier in a firefight against the forces of the United States"? Last time I checked, sleeping in your bedroom is not an example of a "firefight against the forces of the United States."That's the entire problem behind Guantanamo: We know that the overwhelming majority of people we're holding there never took up arms against us. But we're refusing to do anything about it because to do so would mean we fucked up royally. If we're so certain that these people were actual enemy, then we would be forced to grant them trial as required under our law regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. But Bush refused to do so, came up with this fake term of "enemy combatant," and Obama has continued the charade.And now, going far beyond what Bush had ever done, he has ordered a non-military government agency to track down somebody and kill him despite the fact that there is no evidence of any kind that he is "an armed soldier in a firefight against the forces of the United States."Are you seriously saying that if the President decided tomorrow that you should be killed, then you would have no recourse? That you wouldn't immediately demand some sort of judicial restraint? That we as a society have absolutely no recourse from such? That the President actually can order people killed on his whim? Adm. Dennis Blair, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, testified to Congress that the President has such power.Do you believe him?At least under Bush, there had to be a modicum of evidence that the person posed "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." Now, that level was a bunch of bullshit as there was no judicial oversight. The Fifth Amendment precludes such. But under Obama, even that threshhold has been done away with. There is no evidence that the person I am referring to poses any such threat, and yet he has been marked for assassination.This is in direct contradiction to already established legal precedent, or have you forgotten about Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, when the SCOTUS concluded that the US Governemnt does not have the right to even imprison an American citizen as an "enemy combatant" without trial.

quote:

---

And Obama has not ordered the unilateral death of any individual

---

Yes, he has. The New York Times and the Washington Post have both reported on it. Do you even know who I'm talking about? What's his name, crash? If you're so certain that he hasn't, then you can name the person I'm talking about and show me how he meets your criteria.

quote:

---

merely the apprehension where that is safe, or the neutralization where that is not.

---

Incorrect. The orders are to kill. Not, "if he fights back, you are authorized to use deadly force." Kill on sight.

quote:

---

As you correctly identify the fact that it is impossible for the President to legally order the assassination of any individual

---

So why has the Obama administration ordered the assassination of three American citizens?

quote:

---

Did you forget how the Iraq war started?

---

Not by assassinating American citizens.

quote:

---

Are you saying Billy the Kid was not a US citizen?

---

Are you seriously trying to say that 19th-century actions are still justified today? And at any rate, he had been charged with an actual crime and the claim of "Wanted: Dead or Alive" is not an actual call to go out and kill him but rather, if you go to apprehend him and he puts up a fight, then killing him is acceptable.Last time I checked, sleeping in your own bed isn't putting up a fight.

quote:

---

Why would he need to be "found" to be anything at all?

---

Because your Fifth Amendment rights require it and the SCOTUS has so ordered it. Or does the law not mean anything anymore?

quote:

---

Where in the Constitution do you find that it's the role of the judiciary, and not the President in his capacity as commander of the military, to determine what is and isn't a legitimate military target?

---

The Fifth Amendment.Or does the Supreme Court not get to interpret that anymore? The Hamdi court found that the government doesn't even get to imprison a US citizen, let alone kill them, without trial.Doing otherwise is commonly called a "war crime."

quote:

---

Look, you may find the President's unilateral authority to order the military disturbing.

---

Al Gore said it well: And it seems the SCOTUS disagrees. Even SCALIA disagrees.Or does the SCOTUS not have the power to interpret the Constitution?

quote:

---

But regardless of your thoughts, Obama did not write the Constitution

---

Of course not. He's just the one breaking it and the one who really ought to know better seeing as how he's a professor of Constitutional law.

quote:

---

A necessary consequence of the President's authority to determine military targets is that he can determine that Us citizens fighting against the government in warzones are legitimate military targets for army manhunts.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.Or do they count for nothing?

quote:

---

That's never been considered "assassination."

---

quote:

---

That's never been considered "assassination."

---

And since when was he a military target? Hmm? Just because the President says so? Since when do we ever take any person's word for anything, no matter who they are? We are a nation of laws and due process must always be observed.

quote:

---

When you're in a warzone, engaged in military action against the forces of the United States, there has never been any legal doctrine to suggest that you have any particular protection from being killed by the US military just by virtue of having a US passport.

---

First, since when is your bedroom a warzone?Second, since when was it shown that there was any "military action" of any kind taken?Third, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. The Fifth Amendment means something. That's the entire reason why we are housing all those people at Guantanamo: It was an attempt to get around the Fifth Amendment. Since they weren't within the US borders, Bush claimed that the Constitution didn't apply. But the thing is, the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to just citizens nor does it apply to just the borders. The word used is "person." That means anybody and everybody that the US government deals with has those rights.But the Supreme Court specifically pointed out that the US government cannot do so to its own citizens. They are not even allowed to imprison you, let alone kill you, without due process. And that means a trial.

quote:

---

The Constitution does not require (or allow) judicial review of the President's determination of military targets.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

What I mean is he spends like every other American president

---

You act like that's a bad thing. It's what got us out of the Depression and we seem to have not learned that lesson. The government needs to be spending more.

quote:

---

He's placed the country in more recession than any other president in history

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Did we just skip immediately from 2001 to 2009 with no intervening governance? I seem to recall that the economy collapsed under a different president and never recovered. You do realize that the largest portion of the debt that we have is due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that if we hadn't engaged in them, we'd be in much better shape, yes?It seems you have some big misconceptions about TARP. First, it was signed by Bush. Second, it has provided a positive return to the government. But then again, that's how you get out of a recession: Government spending.

quote:

---

an unprecedented and obscene amount.

---

Huh? Did the presidency of Bush simply not happen?And you forget: You get out of recessions by government spending. The problem with the stimulus wasn't that it was too big.It's that it was too small. The only reason we're not in a deeper recession than we are is because of governmental spending. The reason that we're still deep in the one that we are in is because the stimulus wasn't big enough.Did we learn nothing from the Great Depression?

quote:

---

As if Bush wasn't bad enough, he's spent 3 times as much, in the middle of one of the worst recessions in American history.

---

First, you're incorrect.Second, that's how you get out of recessions. Did you learn nothing from the 30s?

quote:

---

That was just about the worst time to go off and splurge like a teenager with a credit card.

---

First, the insurance reform bill that was passed will actually reduce the deficit.Second, the way you get out of a recession is by spending money. Did you learn nothing from the Great Depression?

quote:

---

Without a strong economy no country can take care of its citizens. The economy is priority number 1.

---

And since healthcare is one of the leading problems facing the economy, don't you think it would be a good thing to reduce costs in that area?

quote:

---

I highly doubt that Obama is intentionally sabotaging things to destroy the country. That's silly.

---

Indeed. I don't know where crashfrog gets this vision of me thinking Obama is sitting in the Oval Office, rubbing his hands together and gleefully cackling like something out of a Dudley Dooright cartoon.But he is beholden to the insurance companies, does think he has the right to order the assassination of people, and is fighting for the right of powerful interests to exploit the powerless with no recourse.I don't think he's getting an orgasm from it, but that is the effect of his policies and it is telling that he only seems to find a problem when people point this out.

quote:

---

Stimulus package of $787 Billion. Right, because that worked so well to stimulate the economy when Bush tried it.

---

First, Bush's "stimulus" was not the same. Bush gave a fake "tax cut." Obama spent money on incentives.Second, it did work. You're not in a depression, right? The way you get out of a recession is by spending, not cutting. Did you learn nothing from the 30s?

quote:

---

Still taking cues from Bush's failures, Obama signs on with TARP and bails-out companies.

---

Which actually worked. It will give a positive return. Now, what we're left with are the big banks who will still control too much and have too little oversight, but the collapse of the banking industry would be far worse.

quote:

---

Obama has a huge list of czars

---

Talking point alert! Let's not pretend you chose to hype the word "czar" for no reason.

quote:

---

some of which are every bit as threatening to free speech and freedom of expression and privacy than the Patriot Act

---

Yep.

quote:

---

Remember the problem he had with the Patriot Act? He didn't get rid of it, he just revised it marginally. Things like extraordinary rendition are still in place.

---

Yep. Indeed, Obama has now claimed the right to assassinate US citizens without charge.

quote:

---

Continues the War in Afghanistan. What's the goal? At what point do you win, and at what point do you lose? How do you even win?

---

Yep. And it continues to bleed our treasure. The reason our economy is in as bad a shape as it is in is because Bush had to go to war. Twice. Of course, to act as if we really cared about the deficit and stopped our military presence there would mean we're "soft."

quote:

---

That's the funny things about bickering between Dems and Reps... They're flipsides of the same coin.

---

Oh, please. Not this "pox on both your houses" nonsense. You really think we would have gone to war in Iraq if Gore were president?

quote:

---

Obama's approval rating among Democrats is even worse than Bush's approval ratings for Republicans.

---

Indeed, but his approval rating is better than Reagan's was at this time.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

No response to my post (597519) "Obama's net neutrality betrawal"? Not surprised. For the "many-th" time, Obama has not withdrawn all troops in Iraq. Not even close. Obama is a war-monger, currently: See, your dishonesty in not acknowledging you are wrong is what prompts remarks like this: Here's another item that I am sure you will continue to avoid and/or deliberately misconstrue:Obama Administration Worked With Republicans To Kill Bush Torture ProbeObama Administration Worked With Republicans To Kill Bush Torture Probe, WikiLeaks Cable Reveals | HuffPost Latest NewsNo wonder Bush Jr. and Cheney have no fear of a war crime tribunal and often brag PUBLICLY that they have ordered torture. Obama is on their side.I guess you must believe that Cheney and Bush Jr. are liberals too, right Pops?

I never said that he did. I did actually respond to this, and my response was to ask you why Obama should close the "MASSIVE" US embassy in Iraq. As you'll recall, your reply was to deny that you ever said such a thing, but here you are saying it again.We can go over it as many times as you like - why should Obama be expected to close the "MASSIVE" US embassy in Iraq? AdminPD is a liar. And in this case you appear to have misconstrued my position. Now that I've corrected you are you willing to adjust? Unwillingness to allow Republicans to turn hearings on war crimes into a referendum on the perceived weakness of Democrats is a widespread position among liberals, even if you don't agree with it. I'd prefer it if the Bush Administration was called to account for their conduct but unlike you I'm aware of the structural reasons that such a thing is impossible.

Crash croaks: So if I say my uncle is vastly, staggeringly, obscenely overweight, that means I am saying he should be killed?Give that bit up, Crash - you lost that one.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

On the upside, you've got to give him credit for inventing the time machine. Actually, 18% more. What he's tripled is the per-year increase in the deficit (and doubled the per-year increase in the debt). And if you can't tell the difference I don't think you should be posting about economics.And in the middle of a bad recession is exactly when you're meant to increase spending, even at the cost of increasing debt. You don't worry about water conservation when your house is on fire. No, that's the best time to do it. However, the CBO did estimate that the health care bill would reduce the deficit. Of course, one should not put one's trust in economic projections, but that's the one we've got.

Still no response to my post (597519) "Obama's net neutrality betrawal"? Not surprised. My dearest Crash, you continue to debate disingenuously.For the "millionth" time, technically no, you did NOT say "withdrawn ALL troops in Iraq". But when you keep bragging about Obama's list of "accomplishments", there is an attempted implication, by you stating "Obama has withdrawn troops," that Obama did good on his campaign promise to END the Iraq war.However, you know Obama did no such thing. You know this, at the very least, by my repeated corrections: There are still 50,000 combat troops, 100,000 mercenaries, a dozen permanent bases, and a MASSIVE "embassy" that is certainly not being used as an embassy. In fact, this is actually EVIDENCE that Obama is doing his best to PROLONG the US's involvement in Iraq. This is EVIDENCE that Obama is ACTIVELY forwarding a neo-conservative agenda.The above is apparently just one example AdminPD is talking about when she stated about you: (BTW, with courtesy and professionalism, she extended a generous offer to debate this item with you. Not only did you run away from her offer like a frightened child to its mothers apron, but now you call her a liar? Very classy Crash, how proud your parents must be.) With word-contortionisms like that, you could get a job at Ringling Brothers circus. (Try getting the booth next to the bearded lady, . . . her face is sub-par, but the body is reeeal nice!)Seriously, it may very well be impossible for the Bush Jr. Admin to be tried for their war crimes. But only because Obama is ACTIVELY forwarding a neo-conservative agenda and has reneged on his oath to the office.Obama is not a liberal.Edited by dronester, : quote wrongly attributed

crashfrog points out that it takes 60 votes to prevent filibustering: crash! We're in luck! right now the Dems are trying to modify the filibuster rules.It would be in small steps. Some want to require that the side that wants to filibuster first show 40 votes to filibuster and some want the guy doing the actual filibustering to be present on the floor (no secret holds and 30-hour delays). For example, Bernie Sanders did it the right way.But, alas, they still have the herding-cats-problem in their ranks:http://thehill.com/...-delays-in-effort-to-reform-filibuster

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Right, and that's my point - there are enduring structural obstacles to executive power and Congressional action such that nobody can "really" be a liberal.And you utterly avoided my point, I see. Answer the question - what was the result of the Republicans getting all that "blame" for the government shutdown? Was it the complete defeat of their obstruction of the Clinton agenda? Or didn't they just double-down on the obstruction and force Clinton into a conservative agenda in his second term?Answer the question. Well, no, actually several people have - Hyrogliphix did, Dronester has, Onifire has. They've all blamed Obama for not taking actions that, Constitutionally, aren't delegated to the executive. I mean didn't you read:

quote:

---

Remember the problem he had with the Patriot Act? He didn't get rid of it, he just revised it marginally.

---

Did Hiroglyphix write that, or didn't he? And you, Dronester, Oni, and Hiro continue to pretend that Congress acts at the behest of Obama. Anwar Al-Awlaki, right? Commander of Al-Queda forces in Yemen? You know, the organization that believes in targeted assassinations of civilians regardless of citizenship or location? (His legal defense, I'm sure: "Oh, I didn't mean me.") But Anwar Al-Awlaki had his day in court. Asked and answered, Rrhain. Posse Comitatus Act, etc. Oh, so you admit that it happened - that Obama hardly invented the notion of a government manhunt. Wasn't that kind of my point? Well, by all means, what law should be observed, here? Which court of the United States is empaneled to determine military targets? Be specific. Do they? Show me in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is given the authority over the determination of military targets.Again - you may dislike that the Supreme Court has absolutely no authority in this regard. Perhaps it's a loophole that the President is given sole authority in the determination of legitimate military targets. But, Obama is hardly the person whose fault that is. And unfortunately the Constitution disagrees with them. The President is given sole authority to determine military targets under our constitution. The Supreme Court is given no power of review.